DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITYA PANDEY, AGRA
Facts
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- and a penalty of Rs.81,67,207/-. The addition was made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A as cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were misattributed to his PAN due to a bank error. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on additional evidence from the bank and the assessee.
Held
The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- by accepting the assessee's explanation that his PAN was wrongly linked to an institutional account due to a bank error. The revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. Consequently, the penalty deleted by the CIT(A) as consequential to the addition is also upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by relying on additional evidence not submitted before the AO, and whether the linking of the assessee's PAN to an institutional account was a genuine error or deliberate.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 144B, 271AAC(1), 69A, 143(2), 142(1), 80C, 80D, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23
DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Vs. Aditya Pandey, Executive- Agra. 243, Bhawana Estate, Opp. Kamayani, Sikandra, Agra. PAN :ACHPP1438J (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Advocate Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 19.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.12.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These appeals have been preferred by revenue against separate impugned orders dated 15.05.2025 and 26.05.2025 passed in Appeal No.
NFAC/2021-22/10395424 and NFAC/2021-22/10421630 respectively by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the
assessment year 2022-23, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has partly allowed assessee’s first appeals by deleting the addition of Rs.13,61,20,122/- made by the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed
ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025
u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and by deleting the penalty of
Rs.81,67,207/- imposed by Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated
19.09.2024 passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act respectively.
Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act is
consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being
disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and
brevity. The facts of ITA No. 383/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as
under:
ITA No. 383/Agr/2025:
Briefly stating, the facts relating to this quantum appeal are that the
respondent assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on
19.06.2022, declaring total income of Rs.29,22,850/-. Return was selected
for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the deposit of cash of
Rs.13,61,20,122/- (including through bearer cheque) was made in the
current account maintained by assessee with Indian Bank. It was
ascertained by the department that the assessee declared salary income
only to the tune of Rs.32,22,850/-. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1)
of the Act were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee remained
un-responded and finally after issuing show cause notice u/s. 144 dated
27.02.2024, learned Assessing Officer completed the best judgment 2 | P a g e
ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025
assessment u/s. 144 of the Act and added Rs.13,61,20,122/- and
disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act. Penalty proceedings
u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals).
Learned CIT(Appeals) found that the appellant assessee is a salaried
person and was working as Executive Engineer of EDD-II,
Ghazipur(PVVNL) and due to mistake of Indian Bank Branch, all cash
deposits made on behalf of EDD-II, Ghazipur, were reported against
personal PAN of the assessee, hence, deleted the aforesaid addition of
Rs.13,61,20,122/-, which was added u/s. 69A of the Act by the Assessing
Officer.
Aggrieved, revenue has preferred this second appeal before the
Tribunal on the following grounds :
“1. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,61,20,122/-, by relying on the documents e.g. letter from Electricity Distribution Division-II (EDD-II), Ghazipur, letter from Indian Bank, Ghazipur and account statement of EDD-II, Ghazipur in which cash was deposited, without considering the fact that these documents were not submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings by the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) has failed to adhere to the provisions of Rule 46A, which mandates that an opportunity must be provided to the Assessing Officer for giving his own perspective on additional evidences before being considered in the appellate proceedings. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in accepting the claim of the assessee that his PAN was wrongly linked by the Indian Bank. Ghazipur Branch, in the account of Electricity 3 | P a g e
ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025
Distribution Division-II, Ghazipur, and consequently treating all cash deposits made on behalf of EDD-II, Ghazipur as erroneously reported against the PAN of the assessee, without appreciating the crucial fact that the PAN of an individual was inexplicably linked to the bank account of a government department (Non Individual Entity). The CIT(A) failed to enquire into or examine the involvement of the assessee in such linkage and whether it was deliberately facilitated or was a bona fide clerical error, which was essential for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion. 3. That the order of the CIT(A) dated 15.05.2025 is bad in law, perverse, and liable to be set aside. ……………………………………”
Perused the records and heard learned Sr. DR for the appellant
revenue and learned AR for the respondent assessee.
Learned Sr. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has admitted
the additional evidences adduced by the assessee during the first appellate
proceedings, ignoring the fact that the referred documents, like Indian Bank
letter and account statement of EDD-II, Ghazipur etc. were not submitted
before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and
submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the impugned order in
violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Learned AR has submitted that the revenue had ample opportunity to
rebut the letter issued by the Indian Bank with respect to the fact that the
assessee’s personal PAN- ACHPP1438J was wrongly linked with account
No. 7087292322 of Executive Engineer, EDD-II, Ghazipur, which was de-
4 | P a g e
ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025
linked on the date of issuing letter from the bank on 08.08.2024, further
submitting that the revenue has not still furnished anything contrary to the
evidences furnished by the respondent assessee. Prayed to dismiss
revenue’s appeal.
The main point for determination under appeal is as to whether
learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the said addition of
Rs.13,61,20,122/- by accepting assessee’s additional evidences during the
first appellate stage ?
We notice that the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the
Assessing Officer was ex parte assessment u/s. 144 of the Act, where the
assessee’s version was not there at all. During the first appellate
proceedings, learned CIT(Appeals) has considered the letter dated
08.08.2024 issued by the Indian Bank and letter No. 5231 dated
07.08.2024 issued by the assessee in the capacity of Executive Engineer,
EDD-II, Gopiganj, Bhadoi. These letters are part of the impugned order.
The bank’s letter dated 08.08.2024 clearly speaks that assessee’s personal
PAN No. ACHPP1438J was wrongly linked with the institutional account of
Executive Engineer, EDD-II, Ghazipur revenue Account No. 7087292322,
which was delinked by the bank on the same day of issuance of letter dated
08.08.2024. Learned CIT(Appeals) appears to have exercised his powers
5 | P a g e
ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025
that are co-terminus and co-extensive with those of the Assessing Officer
and on the basis of the aforesaid institutional correspondence, learned
CIT(Appeals) rightly came to the conclusion that assessee’s personal PAN
was wrongly linked with the institutional account of EDD-II, Ghazipur by the
Indian Bank, which was delinked on 08.08.2024. We observe that the
appellant revenue has failed to procure any evidence contrary to the
aforesaid evidences filed by the assessee during the first appellate
proceedings. We have no hesitation to hold that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has
not erred in passing the impugned order. The aforesaid point is accordingly
determined in negative against the appellant revenue. Revenue’s quantum
appeal is thus liable to be dismissed accordingly.
ITA No. 384/Agr/2025:
This Revenue’s appeal challenges the deletion of the penalty
imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAC(1) of the Act.
Since, learned CIT(Appeals) has deleted the penalty pursuant to the
deletion of the corresponding quantum addition, and we have upheld the
said decision of ld. CIT(Appeals) while adjudicating revenue’s quantum
appeal ITA No. 383/Agr/2025, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A)
has rightly deleted the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act,
6 | P a g e
ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025
as it is purely consequential to the quantum addition. The revenue’s appeal
against the penalty order is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025 are
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08.12.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
7 | P a g e
